Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

A breakdown by application: 30 percent (20,000 units) for defense, security, and rescue applications; 23 percent for milking robots; 9 percent for cleaning robots; 8 percent each for medical and underwater robots; 7 percent for construction and demolition robots; 6 percent for robot platforms for general use; and 5 percent for logistic systems.As for service robots for personal use: 4.4 million units sold for home applications (vacuuming and lawn mowing bots) and about 2.8 million for entertainment and leisure (toy robots, hobby systems, and educational bots).And here&apos;s an eye opening number: In 2008 alone about 940,000 vacuum cleaning robots (like the iRobotRoomba 562 Pet Series above) were sold, almost 50 percent more than in 2007. That&apos;s 1 million new living rooms getting cleaned by robots!

Example:Suppose there exists a situation where it is desired to communicate 100 meters through 4 standard sheetrock walls andone concrete wall. Table 1 indicates that the free-space loss for 100 meters at 900 MHz is approximately 93 dB. In thisparticular indoor situation, it is necessary to also take into account the effect the walls will have on communication.The office walls consist of two pieces of drywall (-0.8 dB each) and lumber (-2.8 dB) for a total attenuation of about4.4dB per wall. The concrete wall is 102mm thick and attenuates the signal by 12dB. Using the equation:Power (TX) - Sensitivity (RX) &gt;= Signal Attenuation148 dB &gt;= 93 dB + (4 walls * 4.4 dB) + (12 dB)148 dB &gt;= 122.6 dBThe link margin of 148 dB is greater than the path loss of 122.6 dB, allowing communication to occur. It should be keptin mind that this is only a theoretical estimation. An on sight test should be performed in order to verify conditionsand assumptions.

The IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g Wireless LAN (WLAN) standards operate in a total of 14 channels available in the 2.4-GHz band, numbered 1 to 14, each with a bandwidth of 22 MHz and a channel separation of 5 MHz. This channel mapping can be seen in the channel frequency table of Appendix D. WLAN output powers are typically around 20 dBm and operate within a 100-m range.

It seems that Zigbee is finally following the steps of other &quot;promising&quot; standards. Started in 2003, Zigbee appeared as the solution for all our frustrations in terms of interoperable wireless control. Most important manufacturers were there, supporting the emergent standard and publishing imminent dates for the release of new products. Any Zigbee device from any manufacturer was going to provide total interoperability with any Zigbee compliant product. From light control systems to thermostats and even remote controls for the multimedia equipment, this standard made us think that the total solution for controlling devices wirelessly was just arriving. The massive production of Zigbee compliant devices was initially announced for 2004, then 2005, ... Now, three years after the rings and bells, Zigbee is still in the oven.This article doesn&apos;t pretend to question Zigbee itself as technology. Indeed, Zigbee was started on a solid technological base. Based on a well defined low-level standard as IEEE 802.15.4 and providing support for different frequency bands, a great amount of IC manufacturers soon released Zigbee compatible interfaces and OEM modules. The price of the new RF controllers corroborated the promise of producing really low-cost devices and the presentation of a couple of prototypes in some international exhibitions removed the doubts of some of the most critic technologists. Moreover, the wish of the Zigbee organization has always been to provide reliable-interoperable low-cost devices.Thus, what happens with these international standards? Why is moving these things ahead so hard? This is the actual subject of this article.Communication standards are often created as a way of sharing costs and resources among the promoters. Besides, a company wanting to develop a product under a certain standard will find a communication protocol already defined and even the availability of well-tested platforms where to start developing from. But the companies creators of the standard always assume the extra work and costs of participating in the definition of the new technology. As result, these companies usually try to impose their decisions, all them based on their own commercial and technical interests. When a committee is formed by dozens of members, each one with its own market and a precedent technological basis, the negotiation process becomes complicated. Mainly when the members are big companies that don&apos;t worry about the costs of delaying the release of the new technology up to the infinite.In contrast to these open standards, other &quot;de facto&quot; standards leaded by a single company producing a one-chip solution get sometimes better results. This is the case of Lonworks, a technology created and promoted by Echelon. But I don&apos;t mean that &quot;democratic&quot; open standards have a worse future than proprietary ones. Some open initiatives as CanOpen, Devicenet, EIB, BacNet, etc. are example of collaboration among companies and academic institutions. The secret of the success is maybe in understanding that interoperability is something positive for the market.

Z-Wave is a proprietary wireless communications protocol designed for home automation, specifically to remote control applications in residential and light commercial environments. The technology uses a low-power RF radio embedded or retrofitted into home electronics devices and systems, such as lighting, home access control, entertainment systems and household appliances.The Z-Wave Alliance is a consortium of over 160 independent manufacturers who have agreed to build wireless home control products based on the Z-Wave standard. Principal members include Cooper Wiring Devices, Danfoss, Fakro, Ingersoll-Rand, Intermatic, Leviton, Universal Electronics, Wayne-Dalton, Z-Wave and Zensys.Bandwidth: 9,600 bit/s or 40 kbit/s, fully interoperableModulation: GFSKRange: Approximately 100 feet (or 30 meters) assuming &quot;open air&quot; conditions, with reduced range indoors depending on building materials, etc.Frequency band: The Z-Wave Radio uses the 900 MHz ISM band: 908.42 MHz (United States); 868.42 MHz (Europe); 919.82 MHz (Hong Kong); 921.42 MHz (Australia/New Zealand).

Domotic dojo!

1.
Domotic Dojo!<br />Why me?<br />What is domotic?<br />What is home automation?<br />What are the current platform?<br />What are the current trends?<br />How does Robomotic see the future?<br />7/16/2011<br />1<br />www.robomotic.com<br />

9.
Home automation<br />It is the use of computerized systems or components to control devices and/or processes, in a hose or building, so that the user of the compound can satisfy their needs in a more simple, quick and effective way, than without automation.<br />

25.
A first attempt: KNX<br />KNX is the only global standard for home and building control with<br />A single, manufacturer independent design and commissioning tool (ETS).<br />A complete set of supported communication media (TP, PL, RF and IP).<br />A complete set of supported configuration modes (system and easy mode).<br />Why is not widely adopted? Don’t ask me!<br />

26.
Zwave an example<br />How closed and open source coexists<br />Zwave is proprietary BUT some vendors opened and now there’s Open ZWave<br />